So why do we continue to reproduce? it sure aint for shits and giggles. We would die out as a species very quickly if there wasn't a biological urge for us to pass on our genes.

we continue to reproduce because it's enjoyable. even people with zero urge to reproduce (me) have the urge to engage sexually because it's enjoyable. even people with zero reproductive function still engage in sexual contact.

if the urge of reproduction was tied to evolution (we know this isn't entirely true anymore because we've abandoned the notion of reproducing for the purpose of advancing genetically) a lot of people wouldn't be fucking.

As for why we reproduce:
Instinct - We have material instincts, no species would be successful if it didn't want to create new offspring.

Population - We haven't cured all of the causes of death, if we didn't reproduce our population would decrease until we became extinct.

However, 'reproduction' is not a valid reason to decry people not wanting to be fertile, we have reached the tipping point where we no longer need to pass on our genes through reproduction, and evolution will play an increasingly small role as humans are augmented technologically or via bio-engineering.

we continue to reproduce because it's enjoyable. even people with zero urge to reproduce (me) have the urge to engage sexually because it's enjoyable. even people with zero reproductive function still engage in sexual contact.

if the urge of reproduction was tied to evolution (we know this isn't entirely true anymore because we've abandoned the notion of reproducing for the purpose of advancing genetically) a lot of people wouldn't be fucking.

this isn't fair, i have about 20 different responses but every single one would get me banned.

You forget - we do not enjoy reproduction, we enjoy sex. That is how sexual reproduction is encouraged (and would be selected for), we have abandoned the notion of sex for reproduction because we have both the means to control it, and the brain power to understand it.

we continue to reproduce because it's enjoyable. even people with zero urge to reproduce (me) have the urge to engage sexually because it's enjoyable. even people with zero reproductive function still engage in sexual contact.
.

We find sex enjoyable because there is an evolutionary function for it.

However, 'reproduction' is not a valid reason to decry people not wanting to be fertile, we have reached the tipping point where we no longer need to pass on our genes through reproduction, and evolution will play an increasingly small role as humans are augmented technologically or via bio-engineering.

100% agree, and you won't find a single post where I "decry people not wanting to be fertile".
The entire argument started when I said that animals have a biological urge to reproduce, and this guy just says "NO UR WRONG" and then doesn't offer any arguments.
Instead he says all of his arguments would get him banned, like that's supposed to convince me

Yeah a few minutes is totally worthwhile time I should've been spending curing cancer lol

i could be making more posts about john travoltas butthole but instead I'm wasting time here telling a dude how he can't just post fragmentary, context free jpegs of random scholarly articles and act like that comprises an argument

i could be making more posts about john travoltas butthole but instead I'm wasting time here telling a dude how he can't just post fragmentary, context free jpegs of random scholarly articles and act like that comprises an argument

The picture I posted was randomly chosen out of many google search results simply to prove that there is such thing as an evolutionary function, dogg

Edit: And anyway, why are we arguing about the finer points of evolution? The whole argument was because some guy said that animals don't have an urge to reproduce, which was wrong.
So I think I'm going to call it there. Argument over ok?

Their legal SEX remains male until sex reassignment surgery. But they are and will always be a female. You do not consider her a he. That's ignorant.

One of my friends didn't get bottom surgery due to thinking it wasn't that good and it's really expensive. Yet she still got boobs, hormones etc and was allowed to change her sex legally anyway apparently. I was happy for her but if she ever needed a doctors visit/checkup or something idk how that would work

Although 'designed' was not the word I should have used, anyone who has done even high school science knows what I'm getting at. He didn't even back up his argument, instead just went back through the thread rating all my posts dumb.

no I'm pretty sure you spent $4 to give me a title because you're an angry childish transphobe. nice try attempting to deflect though

Edited:

btw I didn't "go back through the thread" to rate you dumb. I rated all of your posts dumb as you posted them because they were all dumb

Edit: And anyway, why are we arguing about the finer points of evolution? The whole argument was because some guy said that animals don't have an urge to reproduce, which was wrong.
So I think I'm going to call it there. Argument over ok?

no the argument was animals were not designed to reproduce. nobody said anything about urges. if you're going to argue about biology perhaps you should use the proper terminology

yeah i guess evolutionary research is really comprised of idiots
good catch there mate really exposed those dickheads!

Human genes dictate that males have a male reproductive system and females have a female reproductive system, and that males produce hormones that cause them to be attracted to the opposite sex and vice-versa. The function of the male reproductive system is to interact with the female reproductive system to pass on genes and produce offspring. Humans have evolved to function in this way- they are 'meant' to be this way. Exceptions to this are anomalous. Either stop smoking that weed or go and discuss metaphysics instead of trying to talk about science, because the way you've been thinking about things in this thread hinges on philosophy. Questioning the very meaning of 'purpose' and meaning itself is not science

Human genes dictate that males have a male reproductive system and females have a female reproductive system, and that males produce hormones that cause them to be attracted to the opposite sex and vice-versa. The function of the male reproductive system is to interact with the female reproductive system to pass on genes and produce offspring.

Then how do Homosexual people work? Their very existence disproves what you just said.

well an expert in genetics such as yourself, who can make statements about human behavior and genome that surpasses current genetic expertise, should be able to point out those genes.

otherwise i'll likely agree with genetic scientists who don't agree that there is a gene which expresses heterosexuality or homosexuality, rather that heterosexuality is acquired through several ways which is a concept dating back to the Freud days.

Hormonal imbalances in the brain during fetal development is our best guess.

central nervous system actually is the one theory
another theory is androgen exposure, another theory is a specific genotype expressing differently. there's some information on whether transsexualism or transgenderism is genetic but it always gets contradicted like a month later.

learn what the fucking word means before you use it.
Disorder in the medical sense means something that impedes proper function as a person.
incontinence or the inability to be empathetic is a disorder, liking men is a sexual orientation.

the human body is a system, but there is no teleology to that system. it is a system because it is comprised of parts which interact, but that system has no "purpose" or "design"; it is a system in which parts only have "function" in reference to each other

learn what the fucking word means before you use it.
Disorder in the medical sense means something that impedes proper function as a person.
incontinence or the inability to be empathetic is a disorder, liking men is a sexual orientation.

yeah. The course of a human life, when ascribed purposes like "the pursuit of happiness" or "developing close relationships" can deviate from those purposes and therefore can be said to have a "disorder" when it fails to work towards those ends. Continued human existence (reproduction, essentially), however, only has purpose in reference to the aforementioned ascribed purposes and therefore the only things which can be classified as a disorder are those which interfere with those initial ascribed purposes.

The only way you can argue that homosexuality is a "disorder" which goes against the "purpose" of a human body is to first argue that "the meaning of life" is to reproduce; which is something you're going to have a hell of a time trying to convince me of.

Edited:

because, like, "the reason that we exist is so we can reproduce" seems at once paradoxical and infinitely recursive

Plat, your entire argument is "We need to reproduce and trans people can't, ergo they are wrong."

Well then pretty much every contraceptive is "wrong" what about people who don't have sex? Are they "wrong" too? Your entire argument is based on the assumption that we still need to fuck like rabbits in this day and age where we live, on average to the age of 72 and infant mortality amongst 1st world countries is extremely low. By your (Flawed) logic the fact that the rest of the world isn't as populated as china is wrong.

In conclusion you've made an ass of yourself talking about things which you know nothing about.

Platinum you're so intuitively and glaringly wrong. Natural selection doesn't focus on just one thing. The phrase 'survival of the fittest', doesn't imply things like survival of the strongest or species who has tons of exclusively heterosexual intercourse for procreation. There are multiple traits that benefit the propagation of a species. For example, a decent intelligence to recognize STDs and be able to prevent them from spreading.

There have even been some studies that show homosexuality conveys an evolutionary benefit.